United States: California Court Upholds Environmental Impact Report For Golden State Warriors Arena

Last Updated: December 12 2016
Article by Paula C. Kirlin

Paula C. Kirlin is a Partner in our San Francisco office .


  • A recent California First District Court of Appeals decision in Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure et al. affirmed an earlier ruling upholding certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for a new arena for the Golden State Warriors.
  • This is one of the first published appellate court decisions addressing the sufficiency of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts analysis under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) following the California Supreme Court's decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife.
  • The court rejected challengers' claim that the FSEIR was required to quantify the project's GHG emissions and upheld analysis based on consistency with San Francisco's GHG Reduction Strategy.

The California First District Court of Appeals issued its decision on Nov. 29, 2016, in Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure et al. The Court of Appeals decision affirmed the July 18, 2016, trial court's decision upholding the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for a new arena for the National Basketball Association's (NBA) Golden State Warriors by the San Francisco Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) on Nov. 3, 2015.1

Most notably, the decision upheld the City of San Francisco's analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the project's consistency with San Francisco's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, and rejected petitioners' claim that the FSEIR must quantify the project's GHG impacts.2 The case is one of the first published appellate court decisions addressing the sufficiency of GHG impacts analysis following the California Supreme Court's decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (commonly referred to as the "Newhall" decision). In that case, the Newhall court identified several pathways that may be appropriate for addressing GHG, but did not "guarantee" that any specific pathway would be sufficient.

This alert highlights the Mission Bay Alliance decision's key holding regarding GHG impacts analysis and identifies factors that support reliance on a performance standard to evaluate GHG impacts under CEQA.

The Warriors Arena Project

The Warriors Arena project would be located on an 11-acre site in San Francisco's Mission Bay South redevelopment plan area, and would include a 488,000-square-foot multipurpose event center to serve as the home of the Golden State Warriors, two office and retail structures, parking facilities and 3.2 acres of open space.

The project was certified by Gov. Jerry Brown in April 2015 as an "environmental leadership development project" under Assembly Bill (AB) 900 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§21178, et seq.). The AB 900 certification authorizes streamlined judicial review for CEQA challenges where a project meets certain criteria, including that the project does not result in any net additional emission of GHG, including GHG emissions from employee transportation (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21183(c)).

The AB 900 application3 included a technical memorandum quantifying the project's direct and indirect GHG emissions. California Air Resources Board staff conducted a technical evaluation of the GHG emission estimates and voluntary mitigation and concluded that the proposed project would not result in any net additional GHG emissions for purposes of AB 900 certification. Although the proposed project's GHG emissions were calculated for the AB 900 application, the FSEIR did not consider GHG emissions quantification as part of the CEQA analysis of GHG impacts and only evaluated the project's consistency with San Francisco's GHG Reduction Strategy. The parties agreed that the Governor's AB 900 certification serves a distinct purpose, and is not a substitute for a CEQA determination on the significance of GHG emissions. Therefore, the Governor's conclusion that the project would have no net increase of GHG emissions was not material to the court's holding regarding the sufficiency of the Warriors arena EIR's analysis of GHG impacts pursuant to CEQA.

Quantification of GHG Impacts Not Required in All Cases

The FSEIR concluded that the Warriors arena project would not have significant GHG impacts because the project would comply with San Francisco's GHG Reduction Strategy. The FSEIR did not include an individual project-specific impact assessment of GHG emissions. Challengers argued that exclusive reliance on performance-based standards such as consistency with San Francisco's GHG Reduction Strategy is inadequate; they asserted that the FSEIR must quantify the project's GHG emissions and calculate the effect of proposed mitigation measures.4 The Mission Bay Alliance court flatly disagreed with petitioners' contention. The court based its decision on three key factors: a) the CEQA Guidelines, b) the Newhall case and c) the San Francisco GHG Reduction Strategy.

a. CEQA Guidelines allow reliance on performance-based standards.

The Mission Bay Alliance court noted that the CEQA Guidelines expressly allow agencies to either quantify GHG emissions from a project or to rely on performance-based standards. The court cited the CEQA Guidelines as granting lead agencies "discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model to use ... and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards" (CEQA Guidelines §15064.4(a)).

The court cited the California Natural Resources Agency's reasoning in adopting the CEQA Guidelines: "CEQA does not require quantification of emissions in every instance.... If the lead agency determines that quantification is not possible, would not yield information that would assist in analyzing the project's impacts and determining the significance of [GHG] emissions, or is not appropriate in the context of the particular project, section 15064.4(a) would allow the lead agency to consider qualitative factors or performance standards."5 The court further reasoned that GHGs by nature contribute to global climate change but "with little immediate perceptible effect on the locale from which they emanate," and therefore compliance with an area-wide GHG reduction plan may be more useful in determining the significance of emissions than quantification of a project's incremental addition to GHG emissions.

With respect to qualitative GHG impacts analysis, the court cited Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), which authorizes a lead agency to adopt an area-wide plan to reduce GHG emissions and determine that a project's incremental contribution to climate change is not significant if the project complies with the requirements of the previously adopted plan. The court similarly noted that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines encourage local agencies to adopt GHG reduction plans and to use those plans in making CEQA determinations.

The court agreed with plaintiffs that the CEQA Guidelines provide that a lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting. However, the court concluded unequivocally that "the [CEQA] Guidelines do not compel a numeric estimate of every project's greenhouse gas emissions."

b. The Newhall case allows GHG analysis using performance-based standards.

Petitioners argued that Newhall requires a lead agency to first quantify a project's GHG emissions before analyzing consistency with a GHG reduction plan. The Mission Bay Alliance court noted that while the agency in Newhall did quantify project emissions, the Newhall court did not hold quantification to be necessary in every case. Rather, the Newhall decision identified "potential pathways to compliance" with CEQA, including a performance-based methodology in which an agency evaluates the significance of a project's GHG impacts by "looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Accordingly, the Mission Bay Alliance court held that compliance with a GHG reduction plan may, standing alone, provide sufficient evidence that the project will have no significant adverse effect on the environment.

c. San Francisco's GHG Reduction Strategy achieves reductions consistent with local and state targets.

The Mission Bay Alliance court's conclusion that the FSEIR appropriately analyzed GHG impacts based on a performance standard was based in part on the adequacy of the San Francisco GHG Reduction Strategy itself. The strategy includes a quantification of baseline levels of GHG emissions and planned reductions from the baseline 1990 level of 25 percent less emissions by 2020, 40 percent less by 2025 and 80 percent less by 2050. The "heart" of the GHG Reduction Strategy is project-specific measures that achieve citywide emissions reductions. The court cited BAAQMD's approval of the San Francisco GHG Reduction Strategy, in which BAAQMD concluded that the City's planned GHG reductions were more stringent than state standards and that San Francisco "is on track for meeting this aggressive target." The court acknowledged that, in fact, San Francisco had successfully reduced GHG emissions by 14.5 percent between 1990 and 2010, despite an 11 percent population increase during the same time period. Accordingly, the court supported the FSEIR's conclusion that the project complies with energy efficiency and conservation standards set by the GHG Reduction Strategy, and thus, is consistent with citywide and statewide GHG reduction targets.

In concluding that compliance with a GHG reduction plan may, standing alone, provide sufficient evidence that the project will have no significant adverse effect on the environment, the Mission Bay Alliance court cited Newhall for the proposition that "[to] the extent a project incorporates efficiency and conservation measures sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall [GHG] reductions necessary, one can reasonably argue that the project's impact is not cumulatively considerable because it is helping to solve the cumulative problem of [GHG] emissions as envisioned by California law." Here, GHG emissions reductions associated with the San Francisco GHG Reduction Strategy had been quantified, including reductions attributable to project-specific measures that would achieve citywide emissions reductions that exceed state standards. Although GHG emissions associated with the Warriors arena were not quantified for the FSEIR, the project was shown to be consistent with measures for which the City had previously quantified GHG emissions reductions and demonstrated that the reductions would help San Francisco attain (and exceed) local and state GHG reduction targets. As such, the underlying quantification of GHG emissions reductions associated with the GHG Reduction Strategy were a key component of the substantial evidence relied on by the Mission Bay Alliance court to uphold the FSEIR's conclusion that the project is compliant with energy efficiency and conservation standards set by the San Francisco GHG Reduction Strategy and that the project therefore would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment in this respect.


While the sufficiency of GHG impacts analysis under CEQA remains an unstable area of the law, the Mission Bay Alliance case is instructive in illustrating factors that would support reliance on consistency with a GHG reduction plan to determine the significance of GHG impacts under CEQA following the California Supreme Court's Newhall decision.    


1. Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure et al. (Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Nov. 29, 2016). The FSEIR prepared for the Warriors arena project tiered from the 1998 Final Supplemental EIR for the Mission Bay North and South redevelopment plans, which had incorporated information from the 1990 EIR for the Mission Bay plan.

2. The Mission Bay Alliance decision also found that the FSEIR's analysis of transportation, noise, wind, and toxic air contaminants impacts was adequate, and that the FSEIR appropriately excluded certain issues from further review. Finally, the decision rejected challenges regarding consistency with zoning and issuance of a place of entertainment permit for the event center.

3. The project's AB 900 application and related documentation, including the Governor's Certification and California Air Resources Board Determination, are available online.

4. Similar arguments were made in an amicus brief filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Coalition for Clean Air, Communities for a Better Environment and the Sunset Coalition in support of the Mission Bay Alliance.

5. Citing Cal. Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action (December 2009).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.